NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 24-1247

___________

DAVID J. CATANZARO,

Appellant

v.

DOES 1 THROUGH 50; WALMART, INC.;

WALMART.COM

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(M.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-01754)

District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 9, 2024

___________

Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 12, 2024)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

 Appellant David Catanzaro, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s 

dismissal of his civil action for failure to identify Doe defendants 1 through 50. For the 

reasons that follow, we will vacate the order of the District Court and remand for further 

proceedings. 

Catanzaro’s operative second amended complaint asserted claims for patent 

infringement against Walmart, Inc., Walmart.com, and Does 1-50. On August 2, 2023, 

Catanzaro filed a Stipulation of Dismissal “dismiss[ing] with prejudice all claims asserted

in this action by Plaintiff as against Walmart, Inc. and Walmart.com.” D.Ct. ECF No. 23 

at 1. The stipulation indicated that it would “in no way affect Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendants Does 1 through 50.” Id. Walmart, Inc. and Walmart.com were terminated as 

parties and, on August 10, 2023, the District Court ordered Catanzaro to identify Does 1-

50 within thirty (30) days. Catanzaro was warned that failure to do so would result in 

dismissal of the action. See D.Ct. ECF No. 24 at 1. 

Catanzaro did not respond within the allotted time frame. Instead, on September 

14, 2023, he filed a “Motion for Reconsideration,” in which he indicated that he did not 

receive the District Court’s August 10 order through the mail and only learned of it on 

September 13, 2023, when viewing the case docket online. See D.Ct. ECF No. 25 at 1. 

Based upon his failure to receive timely notice of the order, Catanzaro asked the court to 

terminate or vacate the August 10 order and allow him thirty days “to identify Does 1-50, 

and to amend the complaint to add said defendants.” Id. at 3. 
3

Almost four months later, the District Court denied the motion and dismissed the 

case. It noted that Catanzaro “failed to file a brief in support of his motion pursuant to 

the provisions of [Local Rule] 7.5, which itself mandates dismissal of the motion.” D.Ct. 

ECF No. 26 at 1. It further noted that, despite Catanzaro’s request for additional time and 

his assertion that he did not receive the District Court’s August 10 order, he still, as of the 

date of the dismissal, failed to file anything identifying the Doe defendants. Id. at 1-2. 

Catanzaro appeals.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1

 We review for abuse of 

discretion “a district court’s application and interpretation of its own local rules.” 

Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 909 F.3d 604, 613 (3d Cir. 2018). Catanzaro argues, 

inter alia, that the District Court abused its discretion by denying his motion without 

consideration for his pro se status. 

We agree that the District Court abused its discretion in its consideration of 

Catanzaro’s motion. While pro se litigants “must abide by the same rules that apply to all 

other litigants,” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013), their 

filings should be construed liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and 

based upon substance rather than label or title, see Lewis v. Att’y Gen., 878 F.2d 714, 

722 n.20 (3d Cir. 1989). Here, while Catanzaro titled his motion as one for 

1 Although the District Court did not indicate whether its dismissal of the Doe defendants 

was with or without prejudice, a without prejudice dismissal nevertheless constitutes a 

“final” decision under § 1291 where the statute of limitations would prevent refiling. See

Green v. Humphrey Elevator & Truck Co., 816 F.2d 877, 878 n.4 (3d Cir. 1987). 
4

reconsideration, it is more properly construed as a motion for an extension of time. As 

the District Court’s own standing order in pro se cases makes clear, such motions do not 

require a brief “if the reasons for the request are fully stated in the motion.” D.Ct. ECF 

No. 4 at 1. Accordingly, it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to deny 

Catanzaro’s motion on the grounds that he failed to include a separate brief. We further 

conclude that it was an abuse of discretion to deny Catanzaro’s motion because he failed 

to file anything identifying the Doe defendants while he waited on the District Court to 

rule on his motion. Catanzaro should not be penalized for waiting on the Court’s 

consideration of his extension request to determine whether such a filing would be both 

permissible and timely. 

Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s order denying Catanzaro’s motion 

and dismissing the case. We will remand for the District Court to consider, in the first 

instance, whether Catanzaro’s motion, properly construed as a motion for an extension of 

time, should be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).